SHRIRAM VISHRAM MARATHE Vs. PITAMBAR GOVINDA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution can be conveniently disposed by common judgment as the petitions arise out of three suits filed by the landlords against three tenants occupying different blocks in house bearing T.P. No. 1715/B situated at Amalner in Dhulia District. The common controversy in all the petitions is about the claim made by the landlords for recovery of possession on the ground of bonafide personal requirement as prescribed under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The landlords have sought possession from the tenants on other grounds also and those other grounds will be dealt separately.

(2.) THE original plaintiff No. 1 Pitambar Govinda Patil is the natural father of plaintiff No. 2 Jagatrao Shankarrao Bagul. The plaintiff No. 1 is a permanent resident of village Mangrul which is situated at a distance of hardly two miles from Amalner. The plaintiff No. 1 owns house and large plots of irrigated lands at Mangrul. The plaintiff No. 2 was given in adoption to the brother of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff No. 2 is a practising advocate. The plaintiff No. 1 had five sons and several grand-children and all of them were residing at village Mangrul in the ancestral property. On May 29, 1971, the two plaintiffs jointly purchased house property situated at Amalner from Saifuddin. The property consists of ground and first floor and there were three blocks on the ground floor and three on the first. At the time of purchase the plaintiffs secured vacant possession of one of the blocks. The remaining five blocks were let out to tenants and the three tenants involved in these petitions are school teachers paying rent between Rs. 6 and Rs. 10 per month. Each of the block consists of three rooms. Immediately after the purchase of the property, the plaintiffs served notices on all the five tenants terminating their tenancy and demanding possession on all conceivable grounds provided under Section 12 and Section 13 of the Rent Act. The notices were followed by five suits instituted against five tenants. It is not in dispute that one of the tenants Baburao handed over possession of his block, in favour of the landlords with the result that the landlords are in occupation of two blocks consisting of six months in the suits property. The landlords claim that plaintiff No. 2 is a practising lawyer at Amalner and one block consisting of three rooms is in his occupation for his residence. The family of plaintiff No. 2 consists of his wife and four children. The plaintiff No. 2 claims the additional room is needed for the use as his office for the legal profession. The plaintiff No. 1 claims that he visits Amalner from time to time to effect purchase of agricultural goods and is in need of premises to reside at Amalner. The next claim is of Yeshwant grandson of plaintiff No. 1 who had passed his homeopathic examination and was practising at Mangrul for about six years. The plaintiffs claim that Yashwant is desirous of setting up his practice and open clinic at Amalner and, therefore, additional accommodation is necessary. The landlords also claim that another grandson of plaintiff No. 1 by name Sambhaji had passed homeopathic examination and intends to set up practice at Amalner.

(3.) THE Courts below held that the requirement made out by the landlords for accommodation of Raghunath, a grandson of plaintiff No. 1, is bonafide and reasonable and Mr. Rane, learned counsel appearing on behalf of tenant marathe seriously disputed the correctness of the finding. Raghunath is employed in Pratap Mills at Amalner and deposed that he is required to attend three shift at different times and some of the shifts get over at 12 midnight and it is difficult then to travel down to village Mangrul. Ragunath claimed that it is essential that he should stay alongwith his family at Amalner. The two Courts below held that the requirement of Raghunath is genuine and to enable Raghunath to stay at Amalner, it is necessary for Marathe to vacate one block in his possession. Mr. Rane submits that even assuming that the claim of Raghunath is genuine, still the two rooms available in the block vacated by Baburao can be conveniently enjoyed by Raghunath and it is not necessary to throw out the legal representatives of tenant Marathe, the legal representatives being the widow and minor children. I find considerable merit in the submission urged by Mr. Rane. The lower Appellate Court wondered why plaintiff No. 2 could not provide accommodation to Raghunath in two rooms vacated by Baburao. The lower Appellate Court noticed that plaintiff No. 2 was insistent that the block vacated by Baburao was secured by him and he would not provide accommodation to any of the sons or grandsons of plaintiff No. 1. If this is the attitude of plaintiff No. 2, then it is impossible to hold that the requirement made out by Raghunath is genuine. It is more so when the property is jointly purchased by plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 and the property is not divided by metes and bounds. In these circumstances, it is difficult to imagine how plaintiff No. 2 can insist that the block vacated by Baburao would be exclusively used by him and Raghunath would not be accommodated in the portion of the block. In my judgment, an impression is clearly left that the requirement made out is not genuine or bonafide but the landlords are out and out to evict all the tenants on one or the other pretence. The Courts below were wrong in evicting a widow and minor children on the ground that the requirement of Raghunath is genuine. Mr. Karlekar appearing on behalf of the landlord submitted that the finding recorded by the two Courts below is a pure finding of fact and should not be disturbed in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The submission is not correct because I am not disturbing any of the findings but upsetting the decision of the Courts below as it has been overlooked that accommodation is available with the landlords to accommodate Raghunath in the two rooms from the block vacated by Baburao. The refusal of plaintiff No. 2 to accommodate Raghunath in those two rooms is a teall-tale circumstance to indicate that the requirement is neither bonafide nor reasonable. In these circumstances, the conclusion reached by the Courts below in the suit filed against Marathe that the requirement of Raghunath is genuine and, therefore, legal representatives of Marathe should be evicted cannot be sustained.